[BLML] Misclaim

David Grabiner grabiner at alumni.princeton.edu
Tue Sep 21 00:04:28 CEST 2010


"Henk Uijterwaal" <henk at rtflb.org> writes:

> On 20/09/2010 20:06, Honors Bridge Club wrote:
>> Would appreciate help with this ruling
>
>         x
>         Ax
>         --
>         Ax
> x                   --
> Kx                  xx
> --                  --
> Kx                  QJT
>         Ax
>         Qx
>         --
>         x
>
>> Declarer on lead in a NT contract claimed stating: "the rest is mine - The
>> spades are good after the last outstanding spade is coming down under my
>> ace, the Ace of clubs is good and the hearts are good"
>
> I'd give 1 trick to EW.  Declarer does not say which card he discards
> on the second spade but anything but a club does not make sense (how can
> he otherwise cash the hearts that he claims to be good?).   If he
> cashes his tricks in the order he says, that results in 1 trick to
> EW.

Does his claim imply that he would play the tricks in that order?   Normally, I 
wouldn't assume that in a claim, as there are many claims which are invalid if 
the tricks are taken in the order stated (for entry reasons) but are clearly 
correct.

On this hand, there are no entry problems, so the order appears to be 
irrelevant.  It would be just as reasonable for declarer to cash the CA, then 
the two hearts, and then the two spades, in which case he loses two tricks (or 
three if it is likely that West would unblock the CK; this depends on what West 
knows about the rest of the hand). 



More information about the Blml mailing list